The author Cai Xia "was a professor in the Central Party School, where I helped train thousands of high-ranking CCP cadres who staff China’s bureaucracy." This article is certainly more substantial than her last Foreign Affairs article.

Looks the article is not behind a paywall. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/xi-jinping-china-weakness-hubris-paranoia-threaten-future

The article is kind of long. It comprises of an introduction and 8 sections. Part1, THE CHINESE MAFIA;
Part2, SHARING IS CARING
Part3, PARTY OF ONE?
Part4, THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES
Part5, MR. WRONG
Part6, ACTION, REACTION
Part7, FIVE MORE YEARS?
Part8, XI UNBOUND.

A large portion of the article , Part 2 to 8 are focused on Xi. He does not share power like previous leaders. This makes him a party of one. But Emperor X has no clothes and he is Mr Wrong. His actions would elicit bad reactions. Yet he may still get
5 more years as China's leader which would contribute to make him more ambitious.

As some kind of a conclusion, the author wrote "The only viable way of changing course, so far as I can see, is also the scariest and deadliest: a humiliating defeat in a war."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

ltlee1, <news:849bb50a-dfeb-4311-9ff1-5cbb9544ffaan@googlegroups.com>

The author Cai Xia "was a professor in the Central Party School, where I helped train thousands of high-ranking CCP cadres who staff China's bureaucracy." This article is certainly more substantial than her last Foreign Affairs article.

Looks the article is not behind a paywall. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/xi-jinping-china-weakness-hubris-paranoia-threaten-future

The below excerpt can make one wary.

| When Xi took the reins, many in the West hailed him as a
| Chinese Mikhail Gorbachev. Some imagined that, like the Soviet
| Union's final leader, Xi would embrace radical reforms,
| releasing the state's grip on the economy and democratizing the
| political system. That, of course, turned out to be a fantasy.

It sounds like a lost opportunity for positive development.

A person who wants good for China would hardly want China to have a
leader like Gorbachyov. I myself am not a Gorbachyov hater, I think
he was well-intentioned, don't see him as an intentional malefactor
(like some Russians do). But his hard flaws were idealistic naivete
and incompetence. The dire situation one might see in Russia in the
90s was less a result of the "Soviet communism" but more a result of
the incompetent reform started by Gorbachyov (and then continued by
Yeltsyn). Westerners love Gorbachyov because "radical reforms" and "democratizing the political system" are fetishes that please their
Western cultism as well as because he made the Soviet people poorer
and more miserable (thus reinforcing the West's prestige). The fact
the writer considers it positive for China to have some analogue of
Gorbachyov exposes the writer's motivation and agenda, which aren't
based on the homeland's interest, even if her criticism may include
some valid elements.

The article is kind of long. It comprises of an introduction and 8 sections. Part1, THE CHINESE MAFIA;
Part2, SHARING IS CARING
Part3, PARTY OF ONE?
Part4, THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES
Part5, MR. WRONG
Part6, ACTION, REACTION
Part7, FIVE MORE YEARS?
Part8, XI UNBOUND.

A large portion of the article , Part 2 to 8 are focused on Xi. He does not share power like previous leaders. This makes him a party of one. But Emperor X has no clothes and he is Mr Wrong. His actions would elicit bad reactions. Yet he may still get 5 more years as China's leader which would contribute to make him more ambitious.

As some kind of a conclusion, the author wrote "The only viable way of changing course, so far as I can see, is also the scariest and deadliest: a humiliating defeat in a war."

Basically, advocating "a market economy and a softer governance", - as
the writer declares herself, - does not necessarily require combining
it with support for the Atlanticism. However, it's mostly the case for
such "post-communist dissidents". This kind of intelligentsia seems
impossible without serving a master (if not this master than that one).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 7:56:26 PM UTC, Oleg Smirnov wrote:

ltlee1, <news:849bb50a-dfeb-4311...@googlegroups.com>

The author Cai Xia "was a professor in the Central Party School, where I helped train thousands of high-ranking CCP cadres who staff China's bureaucracy." This article is certainly more substantial than her last Foreign Affairs article.

Looks the article is not behind a paywall. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/xi-jinping-china-weakness-hubris-paranoia-threaten-future

The below excerpt can make one wary.

| When Xi took the reins, many in the West hailed him as a
| Chinese Mikhail Gorbachev. Some imagined that, like the Soviet
| Union's final leader, Xi would embrace radical reforms,
| releasing the state's grip on the economy and democratizing the
| political system. That, of course, turned out to be a fantasy.

It sounds like a lost opportunity for positive development.

A person who wants good for China would hardly want China to have a
leader like Gorbachyov. I myself am not a Gorbachyov hater, I think
he was well-intentioned, don't see him as an intentional malefactor
(like some Russians do). But his hard flaws were idealistic naivete
and incompetence. The dire situation one might see in Russia in the
90s was less a result of the "Soviet communism" but more a result of
the incompetent reform started by Gorbachyov (and then continued by
Yeltsyn). Westerners love Gorbachyov because "radical reforms" and "democratizing the political system" are fetishes that please their
Western cultism as well as because he made the Soviet people poorer
and more miserable (thus reinforcing the West's prestige). The fact
the writer considers it positive for China to have some analogue of Gorbachyov exposes the writer's motivation and agenda, which aren't
based on the homeland's interest, even if her criticism may include
some valid elements.

Agree.
My GUESS: Cai Xia was repeating Western media. I did not find any
hint from Chinese media or from the dissidents that Xi had intended
to have the State relaxing its role over the economy and to "democratize"
like the West. No reason to.

The article is kind of long. It comprises of an introduction and 8 sections.
Part1, THE CHINESE MAFIA;
Part2, SHARING IS CARING
Part3, PARTY OF ONE?
Part4, THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES
Part5, MR. WRONG
Part6, ACTION, REACTION
Part7, FIVE MORE YEARS?
Part8, XI UNBOUND.

A large portion of the article , Part 2 to 8 are focused on Xi. He does not share power like previous leaders. This makes him a party of one. But Emperor X has no clothes and he is Mr Wrong. His actions would elicit bad reactions. Yet he may still get 5 more years as China's leader which would contribute to make him more ambitious.

As some kind of a conclusion, the author wrote "The only viable way of changing course, so far as I can see, is also the scariest and deadliest: a humiliating defeat in a war."

Basically, advocating "a market economy and a softer governance", - as
the writer declares herself, - does not necessarily require combining
it with support for the Atlanticism. However, it's mostly the case for
such "post-communist dissidents". This kind of intelligentsia seems impossible without serving a master (if not this master than that one).

Have no idea concerning Cai Xia's political view. According to NYTimes,
Her CCP membership was rescinded and her retirement benefits were
stripped because of a leaked audio recording in which she denounced
CCP general secretary Xi Jinping as a "mafia boss" and the CCP as a
"political zombie."

No one can really rise to become the top leader of 1.4 billion people without making a lot of enemies along the way. Cai does not like Xi is a certainty.
But is it because of ideological differences or for more personal reasons? Only a small number of insiders can really know the truth.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)